Harringay online

Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!

I'm not sure whether this has been shared elsewhere on HOL - can't see it in a search but...

We have recently received a note through our front door that the St Ann's Low Traffic Neighbourhood will be implemented on 22 August.

This is a heads-up for anyone living in or driving through the area between West Green Road and St Ann's Road.  There will no longer be a direct route between the two major roads unless you are a bus or have a 'X2' exemption pass. 

Woodlands Park Road, Black Boy Lane, Cornwall Road and Avenue Road will all be closed to through traffic. 

The restriction points will be monitored by CCTV, so no doubt LBH will be issuing lots of PCNs!  Drivers beware!

I attach two documents, one a map of the area showing the traffic cells as they will be after implementation, and the other the supporting document.

Tags for Forum Posts: low traffic neighbourhoods, st anns ltn, traffic

Views: 27916


Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I used to live in the ward but moved to Philip Lane six weeks ago. I still pass through St Ann's on my way to work and am very much in favour of reallocating space from cars to people. I am disabled and hold a medical reviewv driving license but choose not to drive.

I do feel sorry for those people who can’t read/read English. They’ll be lots of new signs to read & learn about & people may only realise what’s happened once they receive a fine/fines. I live in this LTN zone & didn’t know this was coming into effect on 22nd August, nothing in the post or any email, local notices. Thanks to Geoff for letting me know.

Also, I would encourage anyone who thinks they should possibly be exempt from the LTN (even if they don't live in it) to have a read of this thread and the links in it


It is very definitely an 18 month trial as that is what the experimental traffic order to put it in place is here Traffic Order . They won't just be able to roll that over without it being formally agreed.

I believe the plan is mainly to monitor with cameras.These won't just be used to measure the levels of motor traffic but also cycling and walking.

There is also plenty of info in this batch of documents, particularly the first one https://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=70585#mgDocuments

Andrew, this is an idea I think you've pushed on several occasions. You seem well informed enough to know that it would be disingenuous to suggest that this is a 'trial' using any reasonable definition of the word. 

Councillors have acknowledged that it is essentially one and done due to the punitive funding allocations should schemes be partially or completely removed after introduction.

I find these kinds of half or non truths unhelpful as they foster even greater division between those with differing views on these schemes.

So far as I understand it it is a trial. As I linked to, the traffic order is definitely only for 18 months, and the council minutes also refer to that. Other London boroughs have (or are planning to) removed LTNs so it's not as if once they are there that is that (or are these other boroughs not based on the same funding allocations? I don't know what you're referring to there, is it extra historic costs they'd have to bear, reduced future finding {and if so for what}, or something else. I'd be interested to see some more on this).

If you can provide some links to where councillors have acknowledged that they will be permanent then I'm happy to revise my view but I haven't seen anything yet to suggest that they aren't a trial.

I watched a council meeting a few months ago where a councillor (can’t remember who she was) said if the trial schemes are removed then the Govt will not allocate any further LTN funding. She was suggesting wide and extensive consultations should be carried out to avoid the need to remove them at the end of the trial.

Thanks. I suspected it may be something like this. I would guess that a council that is planning on removing LTNs is less concerned about losing funding for LTNs (and, from what Hugh says, it seems that some of the LTNs may not depend on this funding anyway).

I'd think that the wide and extensive consultations would, in part, be to avoid the legal challenges that we've seen in other boroughs when LTNs have been removed on the basis of flawed consultations.

Andrew, because the most efficient legal device available to councils is a time-restricted one is in no way indicative of it being a trial. Rolling it over into a permanent change requires little more than a cabinet vote. 

The well-publicised statements from govt ministers (that you claim to have missed) relating to withdrawal and even clawbacks of funding were targeted at councils withdrawing LTNs with little or no evidential basis. 

Haringey Council is entirely vulnerable to this because they have quite deliberately failed to even provide a clear evidential basis for the introduction of LTNs. There is no benchmarking, no establishment of first principles, and therefore no 'experiment' or 'trial' is or was ever possible. Internet polls and political groupthink are the basis of all of the evidence presented by the council.

You've taken an active role is selling this as a trial and continue to do so. It's clear to me you are not engaging in good faith.

Your logic seems pretty flawed.

It's easy to roll over an experimental traffic order into a permanent one but, even though it is exactly the same procedure, it isn't easy to start with a permanent traffic order? I don't really follow that.

And the council would be scared of removing LTNs because it would impact funding on LTNs (and in the case of other LTNs such as the Harringay one it appears that they aren't even using this funding).

I still don't know what widely publicised statements you're talking about. Searching only brings up Grant Shapps saying pretty much the opposite of what you're suggesting https://www.google.com/search?q=ltn+clawback+funding+government+min...

Benchmarking has started: cameras were counting traffic and pedestrian movements prior to implementation and will do so during the trial.

Unless you can come up with actual evidence rather than illogical suppositions I will continue to present it as a trial.

Andrew, your not being able to understand the realities of the legal processes really doesn't make the logic flawed. It just means you don't understand and probably haven't tried to.

What is flawed in logic and reality again is the concept of Council funding being discrete, and that the loss of one major source would have no impact on current and future borough-wide plans. 

Your link is to a google search which throws up an article from the RAC as its first result. It states that “future funding allocations will be reduced, and clawbacks could also be imposed”, should councils remove LTNs without a clear evidential justification. That's not so much the opposite of what I said as it is exactly what I said. 

No benchmarking of pollution or of the health of residents exist. Nor are they being monitored. Counting cars? That's the extent of the 'experiment'? 

Again, I really do have to question your motivation. I'm sorry, but I don't find it productive to continually correct your misunderstandings and false statements as it tends to amplify them. So I wont respond again.


The reason I struggle to understand your "logic" is because it's all based on your pet theories rather than facts.

I find it laughable that you suggest that I'm not engaging in good faith and then you post something like this:

It states that “future funding allocations will be reduced, and clawbacks could also be imposed”, should councils remove LTNs without a clear evidential justification.

The actual article states:

The Department for Transport (DfT) said that Grant Shapps has been clear that “future funding allocations will be reduced, and clawbacks could also be imposed” where local authorities do not consider affected communities.

There is no mention whatsoever of removing LTNs in the article, it is about the implementation and consultation (of which Haringey has done a lot, probably for this very reason). You have singularly failed to provide any evidence of these well-publicised statements from govt ministers

In terms of benchmarking, the DfT requirement is

In assessing how and in what form to make schemes permanent, authorities should collect appropriate data to build a robust evidence base on which to make decisions. This should include traffic counts, pedestrian and cyclist counts, traffic speed, air quality data, public opinion surveys and consultation responses.

which is being done.

Given your refusal, or inability, to provide any evidence for your assertions you are right that it is probably wisest for you to bow out now.



© 2024   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service